Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
P. L. A. Popelier
Department of Chemistry, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, SackVille Street, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
ReceiVed: May 7, 1996; In Final Form: July 5, 1996X
Eighty years have elapsed since Lewis introduced the concept of an electron pair into chemistry where it has
continued to play a dominant role to this day. The pairing of electrons is a consequence of the Pauli exclusion
principle and is the result of the localization of one electron of each spin to a given region of space. It is the
purpose of this paper to demonstrate that all manifestations of the spatial localization of an electron of a
given spin are a result of corresponding localizations of its Fermi hole. The density of the Fermi hole determines
how the charge of a given electron is spread out in the space occupied by a second same-spin electron,
thereby excluding an amount of same-spin density equivalent to one electronic charge. The Fermi hole is an
electrons doppelgangersit goes where the electron goes and vice versa: if the hole is localized, so is the
electron. The topologies of two fields have been shown to provide information about the spatial localization
of electronic charge: the negative of the Laplacian of the electron density, referred to here as L(r), and the
electron localization function ELF or (r). The measure provided by L(r) is empirical. It is based upon the
remarkable correspondence exhibited by its topology with the number and arrangement of the localized electron
domains assumed in the VSEPR model of molecular geometry. (r) is based upon the local behavior of the
same-spin probability, and it is shown that the picture of electron localization that its topology provides is a
consequence of a corresponding localization of the Fermi hole density. This paper provides a complete
determination and comparison of the topologies of L(r) and (r) for molecules covering a wide spectrum of
atomic interactions. The structures of the two fields are summarized and compared in terms of the characteristic
polyhedra that their critical points define for a central atom interacting with a set of ligands. In general, the
two fields are found to be homeomorphic in terms of the number and arrangement of electron localization
domains that they define. The complementary information provided by the similarities in and differences
between these two fields extends our understanding of the origin of electron pairing and its physical
consequences.
Pair Density. The electron density multiplied by an infinitesimal volume element, F(r) dr, gives the number of electrons
in dr and integrates to N, the number of electrons. Similarly,
the product of the pair density and a corresponding pair of
volume elements, F(r1,r2) dr1 dr2, gives the number of electron
pairs formed between these two elements, and its double
integration yields the number of distinct electron pairs, N(N1)/2. The density of R-spin electrons at r1 is FR(r1). The
uncorrelated pair density for simultaneously finding R-spin
density at r1 and r2 is given by the product FR(r1)FR(r2). The
correct correlated pair density everywhere is less than this, and
the Fermi hole determines the difference, a negative quantity,
between the correlated and uncorrelated pair densities for samespin electrons.3 This difference is a measure of the degree to
which density is excluded at r2 because of the spreading out of
the same-spin density originating from position r1, and thus the
Fermi hole density determines the manner in which density at
r1, in an amount equivalent to one electronic charge, contributes
to the pair density at other points in space. Pictorially, one can
imagine that as an electron moves through space it carries with
it a Fermi hole of ever changing shape, the density of the
electron being spread out in the manner described by its Fermi
hole and excluding density equivalent to one same-spin electron.4
Since the charge of the electron is spread out in a manner
described by the density of its Fermi hole, it follows, as
1996 American Chemical Society
FR(r1,r2) ) (1/2)FR(r1)F(r2)
(1)
FRR(r1,r2) ) (1/2)FR(r1)R(r2)
(2)
Bader et al.
boundaries, work that leads directly to the demonstration that
the spatial localization of some number of electrons is determined by the corresponding localization of their Fermi hole
density.4
Establishment of the relation between the localization of the
electron and the density of its Fermi hole leads to a direct
physical measure of the extent to which some number of
electrons are localized to a given spatial region. One first
determines the total possible Fermi correlation contained within
a region , a quantity denoted by FRR(,), by integrating
the density of the Fermi hole weighted by FR(r1) over for all
possible positions of the reference electron within .4,8 This
procedure corresponds to the double integration of the exchange
density in Hartree-Fock theory. If NR() electrons are
completely localized within , then the Fermi correlation attains
its limiting value of -NR(), that is, a corresponding number
of same-spin electrons are excluded from . The ratio |F(,)/
N()| for electrons of either spin is thus the fraction of the
total possible Fermi correlation per particle contained within a
region , and this ratio, when multiplied by 100, is l(), the
percent localization of the electrons in .
The method of defining the contained Fermi correlation is
given an atomic basis by identifying the regions with the
basins of the topologically defined atoms in the theory of atoms
in molecules.8 The boundary enclosing an atomic basin, a
quantum mechanical proper open system,19a is defined as one
of local zero flux in the gradient vector field of the electron
density. Such proper open systems are identified with the
functional groups of chemistry,19b since they fulfill the observational requirement of exhibiting characteristic and transferable
sets of properties. The Fermi correlation over an atomic basin
and other atomic properties are calculated by using PROAIMV.20
All SCF calculations, including geometry optimization, are
performed by using GAUSSIAN 92 and the basis set 6-311++G(2d,2p) with six d functions.21 The Appendix lists the atomic
charges q() and percent localizations l(). Also listed are
the total energies, geometrical parameters, and properties of the
electron density at the bond critical point.
Extensive investigation of the contained Fermi correlation
shows that, aside from core regions and including ionic systems
such as LiH or BeH2, electrons are not, in general, spatially
localized to yield individual pairs4,17 (Table 6), the same systems
wherein it is possible to define loges that minimize the missing
information function.17 Unsurprisingly, the electron correlation
energy in such systems is found to be dominated by the intrapair
contributions.22 It is possible for some number of pairs of
electrons to be spatially localized within an atomic basin in ionic
systems. In NaF and MgF2, for example, the populations of
the atoms approach the limiting value of 10 for an LM core
and the localizations are in excess of 95% (Table 7).
Summary and Relation to the Orbital Model. The general
conclusion drawn from the spatial pairing exhibited by the pair
density in many-electron systems is that, aside from core regions,
the density is not characterized by the presence of strongly
localized pairs of electrons. This observation is not at variance
with the possibility of obtaining an equivalent description of a
system by a transformation to a set of localized molecular
orbitals, the pair density being invariant to the required unitary
transformation.4 Maximizing the contained Fermi correlation
for a region requires that each of the orbitals be localized to
a separate spatial region , so that the overlap of the orbitals
between two different regions vanishes.4,8 Thus, to achieve
localization of N electrons into N/2 distinct spatial pairs requires
that each orbital be separately and completely localized to one
of N/2 spatially distinct regions. While orbitals can appear
Figure 2. Contour maps of L(r) and (r) for ClF5 (a) and SF6 (b) with (r) on the RHS. The contour values for L(r) in this and succeeding maps
begin at zero and increase (solid contours) and decrease (dashed contours) in steps of (2 10n, (4 10n, and (8 10n, with n beginning at -3
and increasing in steps of unity. The first dashed contour in (r) adjacent to a solid contour has the value 0.50 and decreases in steps of 0.05 away
from the solid contours. The first solid contour adjacent to a dashed contour has the value 0.55 and increases in steps of 0.05. The atomic
boundaries, as determined by the zero-flux surface condition, along with the bond paths are indicated in each diagram, with the bond cps being
denoted by dots. The values of the functions at the maxima and other cps evident in the contour maps are given in the corresponding tables. The
equatorial maxima in (r) for ClF5 are of limited extent and are nearly coincident with the corresponding bond cps. In L(r) they occur within the
basin of the Cl atom. For a third-row atom, the inner core concentration in L(r) is spikelike at the nucleus, while the innermost region of solid
contours in (r) is reduced to a point in the scale of these diagrams.
Bader et al.
TABLE 1: Critical Points in L(r) and (r) for Molecules with Five and Six Electron Domainsa
molecule
ClF5 [6,8,4]
ClF3 [5,7,4]
SF6 [6,12,8]
SOF4 [5,6,3]L, [6,10,6]
SF4 [6,8,4]L, [5,9,6]
n(r,s)
L(r)
F(r)
(r)
F(r)
typeb
1(3,-3)
1(3,-3)
4(3,-3)
4(3,-1)
4(3,-1)
4(3,+1)
2(3,-3)
1(3,-3)
2(3,-3)
6(3,-3)
12(3,-1)
8(3,+1)
1(3,-3)
2(3,-3)
2(3,-3)
1(3,-3)
2(3,-3)
2(3,-3)
2.095
0.689
0.421
0.358
0.125
0.008
1.764
0.398
0.101
0.401
-0.137
-0.163
0.915
0.414
0.266
1.104
0.330
0.088
1.108
1.218
1.221
1.198
1.239
1.262
1.129
1.256
1.268
1.357
1.368
1.413
1.284
1.356
1.362
1.233
1.360
1.357
0.3944
0.2767
0.2400
0.2362
0.1924
0.1691
0.3646
0.2525
0.1964
0.2537
0.1316
0.1086
0.3999
0.2691
0.2254
0.2609
0.2586
0.1843
0.9882
0.8235
0.7209
0.6324
0.5238
0.4502
0.9860
0.7905
1.570
1.420
1.418
1.317
1.368
1.385
1.618
1.582
0.1926
0.2728
0.2246
0.2092
0.1656
0.1432
0.1718
0.2788
0.8467
0.3326
0.2703
0.8380
0.8438
0.8278
0.9961
0.8348
0.8178
1.595
1.453
1.482
1.483
1.574
1.804
1.801
1.651
2.093
0.3166
0.1214
0.0998
0.3706
0.3348
0.3718
0.1050
0.3546
0.2375
n
b to Fa
b to Fe
n-be
ba-be
n-be-be-ba
n
b to Fe
b to Fa
b to F
b-b
b-b-b
b to Oc
b to Fe
b to Fa
n
b to Fe
b to Fa
a n(r,s) denotes the number and type of critical point; r is radial distance from nucleus to cp. Values of L(r) and F(r) at the cp are in atomic
units, as is r. b n denotes a nonbonded maximum, b a bonded one. Subscript a (e) denotes an axial (equatorial) ligand. Maxima linked by (3,-1)
cp are joined by a-, as in b-b. Maxima linked in forming the face for a (3,+1) cp are indicated. c There are two such maxima in (r).
V-E+F)2
(3)
density is diffuse and small in value, with the result that certain
associated curvatures of L(r) approach zero and the cps are
topologically unstable. In these systems the ring cps can
bifurcate and be linked to further structure in a region of low
density that is of no physical significance. This instability is
not found for the (3,-3) or (3,-1) cps, and the form of the
polyhedron is, therefore, stable with respect to any bifurcation
occurring in its faces.
The atomic graph for Cl in the pseudooctahedral geometry
of ClF5 is illustrated in Figure 2a, and its critical points are
summarized in Table 1. It is an irregular octahedron, with the
positions of the six vertices corresponding to the presence of
one nonbonded and five bonded CCs. All of these cps are found
within the VSCC of Cl with characteristic radii of 1.1-1.2 au.
The geometry is dominated by the large nonbonded CC with
L(r) ) 2.10 au, whose presence causes the Fe-Cl-Fa bond
angle formed by the equatorial Fe with the unique axial Fa to
be less than 90 (Table 5). This feature is made particularly
clear in the envelope map of L(r) illustrated in Figure 3a. Also
in accord with the VSEPR model, the bonded CC facing Fa is
larger than those facing the equatorial fluorines (Table 1). Each
of the latter bonded CCs is linked to the bonded CC directed at
the axial F and to the nonbonded CC to yield a polyhedron
with eight edges and four faces (Figure 3), with the corresponding critical points satisfying eq 3 with 6 - 8 + 4 ) 2. The
number of each kind of critical point that satisfies Eulers
equation, the characteristic set,8 is denoted by [V,E,F] (Table
1). We shall find in the following that Cl exhibits the same
characteristic set [6,8,4] in ELF and the topologies of ELF and
L(r) are homeomorphic.
The properties of L(r) recover not only the geometrical
aspects of Lewiss model, but also his definition of an acidbase reaction. A nonbonded CC is a Lewis base serving as a
nucleophilic center, while a ring cp, since it defines the point
where electronic charge is least concentrated in its atomic graph,
is a Lewis acid serving as an electrophilic center.8 L(r) is
usually negative at a ring cp, and this corresponds to the
presence of a hole in the VSCC of the acid, that is, in a face
of the polyhedron representing its atomic graph. A Lewis acidbase reaction corresponds to aligning a CC on the base with a
hole on the acid, with the alignment of the two cps providing
a guide to their relative angle of approach. In an ionic crystal,
the vertices of the anion are directed at the faces of the cation,33
(5)
G(r) ) (p2/8m)iFi(r)Fi(r)/Fi(r)
(6)
where Fi ) |i|2 is the density of orbital i (natural or HartreeFock) with occupation number i. The function g(r), the
Weiszacker functional,43b is expressed in terms of the total
electron density F(r):
Figure 3. Displays of L(r) and ELF or (r) in terms of isovalued
surfaces or envelope plots. (a) The surfaces of L(r) ) 0.38 au isolate
the six maxima in the VSCC of Cl in ClF5: the upper broad nonbonded
maximum, the axial bonded maximum, and the four smaller equatorial
bonded maxima surrounding the inner core of Cl. (b) The surfaces of
(r) ) 0.65 showing the inner core and the same set of maxima that
exhibit the same relative sizes as found in L(r). The bonded maxima
in this case are linked to the surfaces of similar value enveloping the
fluorine ligands. The polyhedron defined by the characteristic set
[6,8,4] is shown as an inset. Panels c and d are corresponding displays
of L(r) and (r) for SF6 for envelopes equaling 0.0 and 0.8, respectively.
The ligands appear in both displays, in addition to the six bonded
maxima and the inner core of S. The characteristic polyhedron in this
case is [6,12,8], as displayed in the inset. The surfaces in L(r)
encompass regions within which L(r) > 0 and within which the electron
density is concentrated.
(4)
g(r) ) (p2/8m)F(r)F(r)/F(r)
(7)
It is clear from eq 6 that g(r) is the correct form for the kinetic
energy density only for a single electron or a two-electron
Hartree-Fock ground state, that is, for a system described by
a single orbital. The difference between these two functions
for any other system vanishes at a nuclear position, r ) 0, and
for positions far removed from nuclei, r w . Tal and Bader42
demonstrated two other important properties of : (a) that (r)
g 0 and thus g(r) underestimates the kinetic energy density for
0 e r e and (b) that the requirement for (r) to approach
zero is for each orbital and, thus, each orbital density Fi to be
localized to its own spatial region. They noted that this is the
very condition required for the spatial localization of the Fermi
hole density and for the creation of electron pairs.4 Thus, one
has the important result that the kinetic energy density contains
information regarding the spatial localization of the electrons.42
Consequently, they found g(r) to be a good model of the kinetic
energy density in LiH,42 where the orbitals are spatially localized
and where, as discussed with reference to Figure 1, electron
pairing is very pronounced in each atomic basin with l(Li) )
l(H) ) 95% (Table 6).
The function (r) can be defined for each set of same-spin
electrons, with R(r) ) (r)/2 for a closed-shell system. In a
region of space over which R(r) approaches zero, the Fermi
hole density thus is correspondingly localized, approaching -FR(r) in value, and a single electron of given spin will determine
the kinetic energy density. If each orbital in a many-electron
system is so localized to a distinct spatial region, then the
expression for G(r) becomes a sum over separate spatial regions.
There will be one region for each Fi(r) over which it will equal
the density F(r) appearing in the expression for g(r) and hence,
in this limit, G(r) will equal g(r).
This situation is to be contrasted with the ground state of a
system of non-interating Bosons in which all of the particles
occupy the same orbital and every particle is equally delocalized
over the entire system. A Bose-Einstein condensate has
recently been observed in the cooling of a cloud of integerspin 87Rb atoms that closely approach the non-interacting
condition.44 When the de Broglie wavelength becomes larger
than the mean spacing between the particles, the wave functions
for the atoms overlap to such an extent that individual atoms
can no longer be distinguished and Bose statistics favors the
condensation of all of the particles into a single quantum state,
which is just the opposite extreme to the situation required for
Bader et al.
(r) ) (1 + 2)-1
(8)
L(r)
F(r)
(r)
F(r)
typeb
24.980
1.268
2.632
2.194
5.349
3.383
4.703
9.343
22.978
0.340
22.900
0.602
0.657
0.828
0.858
2.243
1.012
0.748
0.831
0.649
0.717
0.635
0.576
2.781
1.443
2.649
1.297
1.500
1.281
1.185
0.4178
0.2991
0.5562
0.4805
0.9427
0.7445
1.1169
1.4736
0.3879
0.1319
0.3865
0.1973
0.2211
0.2807
0.2730
>0.9500
>0.9900
0.9567
0.9994
0.9213
0.9981
0.9960
0.8896
1.0000
0.9954
1.0000
0.9694
0.9998
0.9994
0.9245
2.240
2.083
1.388
1.921
1.109
1.810
1.730
0.955
2.837
2.327
2.685
1.867
2.531
2.412
1.625
0.4170
0.4162
0.1584
0.4170
0.3242
0.4074
0.3856
0.5292
0.3694
0.0420
0.3758
0.0900
0.3692
0.3532
0.1404
b
b
n
b3
n2
b2
b
n (ring)
b4
n
b3
n2
b2
b
n (ring)
a See footnote a to Table 1. b A > sign before (r) means that the maximum is flat to the extent that its location could not be determined
precisely, and the values of F(r) and r refer to the position of the proton, its approximate location in other hydrides.
Bader et al.
Figure 5. Contour plots of L(r) on the left and (r) on the right for
third-row hydrides: (a) SiH4, (b) PH3, (c) SH2, and (d) ClH. The plots
for SH2 are for the plane containing the two nonbonded domains. The
bonded domains are localized on the protons in all cases except for
L(r) in SH2 and ClH.
Figure 4. Contour plots of L(r) on the left and (r) on the right for
second-row hydrides: (a) BH3, (b) CH4, (c) NH3, (d) OH2, and (e) FH.
In (r) the bonded domains are localized on the protons, while in L(r)
this is true only in the ionic and polar cases such as BH3. The upper
axial cp in water is the (3,-1) cp linking the two nonbonded domains
in the perpendicular plane, a plane illustrated in Figure 5 for SH2.
Electron domains in both fields contract in size with increasing nuclear
charge on A.
TABLE 3: (3,-3) Critical Points in L(r) and (r) for Fluorides and PCl3a
molecule
BF3 [3,6,6]
CF4 [4,6,4]
NF3 [4,6,4]
PCl3 [4,6,4]
OF2 [2,3,3]L, [4,5,3]
SF2 [4,6,4]L, [4,5,3]
ClF2+ [4,5,3]
F2
a
L(r)
F(r)
(r)
F(r)
type
0.182
1.078
5.359
1.561
0.417
0.182
10.017
1.141
0.979
0.691
0.842
1.411
1.557
0.607
0.3155
0.3382
0.7515
0.4034
0.1476
0.1274
1.2195
0.8621
0.8824
0.9935
0.8515
0.9969
0.8643
0.9718
0.7732
1.330
1.154
1.333
1.126
2.076
1.979
1.064
1.157
0.4366
0.3824
0.2072
0.3774
0.0634
0.3422
0.4196
0.3710
1.006
0.088
1.724
0.496
-0.154
12.540
1.253
1.396
1.130
1.245
1.256
0.560
0.2489
0.2123
0.3594
0.2768
0.3669
1.6348
0.8178
0.9873
0.7922
0.7101
0.9207
1.864
1.639
1.496
1.256
0.941
0.3946
0.1604
0.2948
0.3669
0.5826
b3
b4
n
b3
n
b3
n2
b2
n2
b2
n2
b2
b
b (ring)
Figure 7. Contour plots for L(r) and (r) for second- and third-row
fluorides: (a) OF2, (b) SF2, (c) ClF2+, and (d) F2.
the set [4,6,4], but in L(r) the four maxima occur in regions
where L(r) < 0. Thus, in very polar fluorides as well as in the
corresponding hydrides, only nonbonded CCs appear within the
VSCC the A atom in L(r).
The situation is different for the less polar third-row chlorides,
as evidenced by PCl3 where the net charge on P is decreased to
+1.8e from +2.5e in the fluoride (Table 7). Both fields exhibit
Bader et al.
TABLE 4: (3,-3) Critical Points in L(r) and (r) for Single, Double, and Triple Bondsa
molecule
C2H6 [4,6,4]
C2H4 [3,5,4]L, [4,6,4]
C2H2
N2
CO O
C
H2CO
[3,3,2] O
[3,5,4] C
dimethyl ether
[4,5,3] O
[4,6,4] C
SO2 [3,4,3]
SO3 [3,6,3]L, [6,9,5]
L(r)
F(r)
1.034
1.282
1.478
1.405
1.560
0.976
1.010
0.977
0.994
1.115
0.2795
0.3004
0.3769
0.3122
0.4407
1.515
3.963
2.922
5.483
4.901
1.310
5.878
3.794
1.537
1.452
2.706
5.688
0.837
1.457
1.389
0.866
0.743
0.811
0.982
0.824
0.733
0.688
0.649
0.863
0.644
0.710
0.970
0.955
0.717
0.646
1.023
0.987
0.992
1.257
1.322
1.299
0.3255
0.7738
0.5779
0.9811
0.9165
0.3174
0.9741
0.8259
0.3198
0.4826
0.7034
0.9700
0.2805
0.3170
0.3095
0.2283
0.3866
0.3902
F(r)
type
0.9685
0.9999
0.9412
0.9999
1.440
2.088
1.332
2.063
0.2496
0.4206
0.3044
0.4224
0.8906
0.9999
0.8854
0.9811
0.8786
0.9379
0.9980
0.9320
0.8801
>0.9500
0.8801
0.9069
0.9256
0.9069
0.9500
0.9500
0.9939
0.8529
0.8348
1.443
2.015
1.008
1.342
1.002
1.148
1.645
1.103
1.104
2.063
1.123
1.331
1.116
1.299
2.040
2.040
1.819
1.532
1.506
0.2250
0.4072
0.7648
0.1656
0.6914
0.2760
0.0834
0.3340
0.5424
0.4387
0.5424
0.3198
0.3270
0.3198
0.4000
0.4000
0.1022
0.4630
0.3772
b to Cb
b to H
b to Cc
b to H
b to Cd
b (ring)
b to H
b1 in
n
b to C
n
n
n
b
b to H
b to O
b to C
n
b to O
b to H
b to H
n
b2
b3 in L
b6 in
(r)
a See footnote a to Table 1. b A central maximum in . c Two central maxima in . d Single central maximum in L. Ring attractor in is
centered at midpoint.
Figure 8. Contour plots for L(r) and (r) for (a) ethane, (b) ethene in
the plane of the nuclei, (c) ethene in the plane perpendicular to (b) and
containing the C-C axis, and (d) ethyne. The central contour in (r)
in plot c of value 0.9 envelops two off-axis maxima of value 0.94 (Table
4). Plot d for (r) shows a cross section of the ring attractor.
The field for (r) is readily derived from that for L(r) in
ethene by replacing the bonded domain for the C-C interaction
in the atomic graph for L(r) by a linked pair of maxima in (r), thereby accounting for their characteristic sets differing by
one (3,-3) and one (3,-1). The remainder of the atomic graphs
is identical with a split pair of (3,-1) cps, as found in BH3,
linking the bonded maxima to carbon with those associated with
the protons. Of particular importance is the presence of two
(3,+1) cps situated on each side of the molecular plane above
and below each carbon atom. Their presence as holes in the
VSCC of carbon, along with their relative size, has been used
to account for the point and ease of nucleophilic attack in a
series of substituted ethenes.52
In ethyne a single symmetrically placed bonded charge
concentration links the two carbon atoms in L(r), while in (r)
this is replaced by a ring attractor,46 a connected set of (2,-2)
cps. Both fields have a bonded domain associated with each
proton, and the central attractor is linked to these by a ring of
connected (2,0) cps whose presence of also clear in Figure 8.
The charge concentrations associated with the C-C interactions
Figure 9. Contour maps for L(r) and (r) for (a) N2, (b) CO, (c) H2CO in the plane of the nuclei, and (d) in the perpendicular plane
containing the C-O axis. Note the pronounced nonbonded domain
on C in CO evident in both fields in (b) and the very marked holes
or (3,+1) cps in the VSCC of the carbonyl carbon in (d).
in L(r) increase in the order ethane < ethene < ethyne, with
the electron localization domains of (r) exhibiting the reverse
order.
The isoelectronic molecules N2 and CO are also triply bonded
within the Lewis model, but neither exhibits a ring attractor as
found in ethyne. In N2 the two fields are homeomorphic, both
exhibiting an axial nonbonded domain on each atom that is
linked via a ring of (2,0) cps to a central axial bonded domain
(Figure 9). The fields are again homeomorphic in CO, with
the oxygen atom exhibiting the same structure as N in N2. The
carbon atom exhibits a very pronounced axial nonbonded
domain in both fields that is linked to the central bonded domain
by a ring of (2,0) cps.
In the H2CO molecule, (r) exhibits only a single axial
bonded domain between the C and O atoms, as opposed to the
two found in L(r). If the single domain in (r) is considered
shared by both atoms, the two fields are homeomorphic for the
C and O atoms. Only axial cps are found for the formally
doubly bonded CsO interaction. The atomic graph for carbon
in this molecule is homeomorphic with that for the L(r) field
Figure 10. Contour maps of L(r) and (r) for (a) SO2, (b) SO3 in the
plane of the nuclei, and (c) SO3 in a perpendicular plane containing an
S-O axis. The central bonded contour of value 0.8 for (r) in (c)
encompasses two off-axis maxima of value 0.83 (Table 4).
Bader et al.
symmetrically placed on each side of the plane of the nuclei in
the manner found for the carbon in the carbonyl group. The
double-bond character is also reflected in the significant
ellipticities of 1.4(S) and 3.1(O) for the bonded CCs, with the
value for the shared bonded maximum in (r) being 2.3. The
oxygen exhibits two nonbonded maxima in both fields.
In SO3 the corresponding Lewis structure predicts a bond
order of 1.33, increasing to 1.67 or 2.0 by allowing for an
expanded valence shell of 10 or 12 on S. The S-O link in
L(r) for this molecule has a single CC in each VSCC, as found
in SO2. (r), however, exhibits two bonded maxima symmetrically placed on each side of the plane of the nuclei, as
found for the C-C link in ethene, and because of this the two
fields are not homeomorphic. The bonded CCs in L(r) again
exhibit significant ellipticities of 2.2 on S and 2.5 on O (Figure
10), and the values of L(r) at the bonded maxima on S exceed
those found in SO2 (Table 4). The greater double-bond
character found in SO3 than in SO2 is reflected in the larger
ellipticity found for F(r) at the bond cp in the former: 0.261
compared to 0.155.
In summary, in some molecules such as ethene and SO3, a
double bond is represented in (r) in the form of two shared
bonded domains, while in others, such as the carbonyl group
and SO2, (r) exhibits a single bonded domain. Similarly, in
ethyne, the triple bond is represented by a ring of (2,-2)
attractors, while in N2 and CO only axial bonded and nonbonded
attractors are present. Double and triple bonds are represented
by axial cps in L(r), one on each atom in most cases, and by a
single shared maximum in others, as in ethyne and CO. A single
bond is, in general, represented by a single bonded domain in
(r), which appears to be shared by both atoms except when
bonded to hydrogen, in which case the bonded domain is
localized about the proton. In L(r), a single bond is represented
by a maximum in the VSCC of each atom in other than hydrides
and ionic or very polar species where a single maximum appears
in the VSCC of the electronegative atom. The cps in L(r)
exhibit radii characteristic of the corresponding valence shell
of the atom.
Molecules with Five Electron Pair Domains. The two
fields appear to be homeomorphic for the Cl atom in ClF3 with
the characteristic set [5,7,4]. The T-shaped geometry of this
molecule is a consequence of the two large nonbonded domains,
which, along with the equatorial bonded domain, are evident
in both fields in Figure 11a. By occupying the less crowded
equatorial positions, the angle formed between the two nonbonded cps can expand to a value well in excess of 120,
equaling 147 in L(r) and 144 in (r). The three bonded and
two nonbonded domains in L(r) exhibit the relative angular
positions and sizes anticipated on the basis of VSEPR, with
the axial ones being the smallest (Table 1). In spite of the fact
that both fields exhibit the number of edge and face cps requiring
five vertices, MORPHY is unable to locate the two axial bonded
domains in (r). The plots for both fields in the plane of the
three ligands are very similar in the regions of the Cl-F bonds
to the corresponding plots for ClF5 in Figure 2, with the roles
of the equatorial and axial ligands reversed. The absence of
the axial domains in (r) for ClF3 is a mathematical anomaly.
The remaining two examples, SOF4 and SF4 (Figure 11, Table
1), are molecules that, according to VSEPR theory, should
possess five electron pair domains as does ClF3, with the one
associated with the S-O linkage in SOF4 being large and
asymmetric since it represents two electron pairs. This is indeed
the case for L(r) in SOF4, but for (r) the domain for the S-O
linkage, as it is in SO3, is bifurcated in two symmetrically placed
about the C2 axis in the plane containing the equatorial ligands.
Figure 11. Contour maps of L(r) and (r) for ClF3 in the equatorial
plane containing the two nonbonded domains (a), for SOF4 in the plane
of the axial fluorines (b), for SOF4 in the plane of the equatorial
fluorines (c), and for SF4 in the plane of the equatorial fluorines (d).
The bonded contour shared with oxygen in (r) of plot c encompasses
two maxima of value 0.84 (Table 1). This maximum exhibits
considerable ellipticity in both fields, as does the corresponding
nonbonded domain on S in SF4 shown in (d), as described in the text.
TABLE 5: Bond Critical Point and Atomic Data for Molecules with Five and Six Electron Domainsa
molecule
ClF5, E ) -956.345 74, FeClFa ) 85.5
ClF3, E ) -757.626 88, FaClFe ) 86.9
SF6, E ) -994.229 80
SF4, E ) -795.314 32, FaSFa ) 171.0, FeSFe ) 102.2
SOF4, E ) -870.171 39, OSFa ) 97.2, OSFe ) 124.2
bond
RA-B
Fb
2Fb
Hb
q(A)
q(B)
l(A)
l(B)
Cl-Fa
Cl-Fe
Cl-Fa
Cl-Fe
S-F
S-Fa
S-Fe
S-O
S-Fa
S-Fe
2.962
3.076
3.173
2.955
2.905
3.087
2.871
2.621
2.971
2.855
0.2716
0.2264
0.1859
0.2519
0.2341
0.1821
0.2350
0.3635
0.2127
0.2427
-0.5154
-0.1303
+0.0652
-0.3802
+0.2333
-0.0155
+0.3458
+0.9570
+0.1552
+0.3998
-0.283
-0.185
-0.127
-0.274
-0.288
-0.182
-0.278
-0.550
-0.248
-0.292
+2.526
+2.526
+1.629
+1.629
+4.389
+2.914
+2.914
+4.313
+4.313
+4.313
-0.420
-0.527
-0.595
-0.440
-0.732
-0.722
-0.736
-1.395
-0.736
-0.723
0.86
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.92
0.95
0.94
Bond angles in degrees; all other quantities in atomic units except for l() which is dimensionless. The 6-311++G(2d,2p) basis was used for
geometry optimization and determination of the electron density using GAUSSIAN92.21 See Appendix for explanation of symbols.
Bader et al.
energy
RA-H HAH
Fb
2Fb
Hb
q(A)
q(H)
l(A)
l(H)
LiH
BeH2
BH3
CH4
NH3
-7.986 16
-15.771 36
-26.399 18
-40.212 32
-56.218 58
0.0398
0.0978
0.1864
0.2894
0.3604
+0.156
+0.189
-0.258
-1.124
-1.889
-0.001
-0.050
-0.210
-0.326
-0.536
+0.912
+1.729
+2.112
+0.175
-1.047
-0.912
-0.865
-0.704
-0.044
+0.349
0.95
0.88
0.74
0.66
0.83
0.95
0.90
0.77
0.47
0.29
OH2
-76.057 43
3.307
2.515
2.243
2.044
1.886
107.9
1.776
106.3
1.696
3.622
3.225
2.981
2.785
2.656
95.4
2.506
94.1
2.390
0.3964
-3.106
-0.853
-1.254
+0.627
0.93
0.16
0.4043
0.0246
0.0545
0.0838
0.1220
0.1651
-4.006
+0.088
+0.220
+0.251
+0.179
-0.107
-1.091
+0.003
-0.006
-0.030
-0.082
-0.164
-0.779
+0.816
+1.614
+2.361
+2.895
+1.694
+0.779
-0.816
-0.807
-0.787
-0.724
-0.565
0.98
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.91
0.91
0.10
0.90
0.89
0.84
0.77
0.65
0.2210
-0.657
-0.228
+0.284
-0.142
0.93
0.45
0.2571
-0.787
0.254
-0.222
+0.222
0.97
0.33
FH
NaH
MgH2
AlH3
SiH4
PH3
-100.056 47
-162.380 56
-200.731 93
-243.640 96
-291.257 25
-342.481 92
SH2
-398.706 38
HCl
-460.098 80
TABLE 7: Bond Critical Point and Atomic Data for Fluorides and PCl3a
AFn
energy
RA-H HAH
Fb
2Fb
Hb
q(A)
q(H)
l(A)
l(H)
LiF
BeF2
BF3
CF4
NF3
-106.978 94
-213.760 38
-323.308 00
-435.787 77
-352.661 26
0.0763
0.1498
0.2917
0.3186
0.3773
+0.768
+1.480
+0.443
-0.153
-0.859
+0.024
-0.014
-0.241
-0.528
-0.453
+0.940
+1.807
+2.576
+2.964
+1.086
-0.940
-0.904
-0.859
-0.741
-0.362
0.96
0.90
0.83
0.70
0.74
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.93
OF2
-273.550 44
0.3697
-0.079
-0.318
+0.332
-0.166
0.84
0.93
F2
NaF
MgF2
AlF3
SiF4
PF3
-198.747 55
-261.356 86
-398.691 03
-540.580 79
-687.119 44
-639.264 51
0.3669
0.0518
0.0834
0.1215
0.1628
0.1793
+0.154
+0.453
+0.859
+1.210
+1.351
+0.936
-0.306
+0.015
+0.021
+0.003
-0.054
-0.122
0.000
+0.941
+1.826
+2.647
+3.428
+2.510
0.000
-0.941
-0.913
-0.882
-0.857
-0.837
0.93
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
SF2
-596.412 71
2.953
2.574
2.444
2.447
2.496
102.9
2.526
103.5
2.512
3.647
3.279
3.050
2.912
2.922
97.3
2.970
97.2
2.882
100.2
3.889
100.4
0.1952
+0.344
-0.201
+1.427
-0.714
0.94
0.95
0.2768
-0.496
-0.344
+1.764
-0.382
0.92
0.93
0.1270
-0.164
-0.106
+1.776
-0.592
0.90
0.97
ClF2
-657.853 56
PCl3
-1719.342 60
TABLE 8: Bond Critical Point and Atomic Data for Single, Double, and Triple Bondsa
molecule
C2H6, E ) -79.257 33, CCH ) 111.2
C2H4, E ) -78.061 42, CCH ) 121.6
C2H2, E ) -76.846 95
N2, E ) -108.981 24
CO, E ) -112.776 38
H2CO, E ) -113.908 29, HCO ) 121.8
(CH3)2O, E ) -154.120 20, HCO ) 107.8,b HCO ) 111.4c
SO2, E ) -547.271 32, OSO ) 118.8
SO3, E ) -622.118 46
a
bond
RA-B
Fb
2Fb
Hb
q(A)
q(B)
l(A)
l(B)
C-C
C-H
C-C
C-H
C-C
C-H
N-N
C-O
C-O
C-H
C-O
C-Hb
C-Hc
S-O
S-O
2.881
2.048
2.485
2.029
2.229
1.992
2.015
2.085
2.227
2.063
2.628
2.040
2.054
2.644
2.625
0.2496
0.2908
0.3710
0.3000
0.4407
0.3080
0.7649
0.5332
0.4475
0.3003
0.2730
0.3029
0.2964
0.3343
0.3492
-0.614
-1.132
-1.342
-1.216
-1.560
-1.316
-3.766
+0.739
+0.139
-1.227
-0.343
-1.232
-1.178
+1.205
+1.041
-0.205
-0.329
-0.475
-0.343
-0.709
-0.360
-1.600
-1.041
-0.833
-0.335
-0.426
-0.345
-0.333
-0.461
-0.507
+0.183
+0.183
+0.035
+0.035
-0.136
-0.136
0.000
+1.357
+1.292
+1.292
+0.776
+0.776
+0.776
+2.712
+4.105
+0.183
-0.061
+0.035
-0.017
-0.136
+0.136
0.000
-1.357
-1.271
-0.010
-1.288
-0.022
-0.054
-1.356
-1.368
0.65
0.65
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.78
0.89
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.90
0.87
0.65
0.47
0.67
0.45
0.68
0.39
0.78
0.92
0.91
0.47
0.89
0.47
0.48
0.91
0.92
and more diffuse in these cases than those found in VF5.56 The
ligand-opposed nature of the CCs in the outer core, as defined
by L(r) for the V atom, is displayed in Figure 12 for VH5 where
q(V) ) +1.7e. Also shown is a corresponding display of (r)
for this molecule, and the atomic graphs for V are clearly
homeomorphic in terms of the electron domains that they define.
Bader et al.
(A1)
R
hR(r1,r2) ) -{*
i(r1)i(r2)*
j(r2)j(r1)}/F (r1) (A2)
JP961297J